Subhra Saha vs Ranjit Deb

Harish Tandon, J.—This revisional application is directed against the order dated 2nd April, 2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 5th Court, Alipore in Ejectment Suit No. 515 of 2008, by which an application under Section 13 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 is rejected.

The plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for eviction of a monthly tenant, inter alia, on the ground of default and reasonable requirement. The tenant, after receipt of the summons, entered appearance and deposited the admitted arrears rent along with statutory interest at the rate it was last paid to the landlord.

A dispute was raised under Sub-section 2 of Section 7 of the said Act relating to the rate of rent as well as the period of defaults. It is undisputed that the Court determined the dispute and the tenant is depositing the rent in terms of the said order. Subsequently the plaintiff/petitioner took out an application under Section 13 of the said Act praying for an order directing the defendant/opposite party to pay monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 1815/- in terms of the written agreement dated 3rd March, 2004.

The Trial Court dismissed the said application, which is impugned in this revisional application.

Section 13 of the said Act is incorporated under Chapter VI thereof relating to the provisions regarding rent. The said Section prohibits the tenant to pay any amount in excess of the fair rent, unless such amount is lawfully increased of the fair rent in accordance with the provisions of the said Act.

Sub-clause (b) of Section 13(1) of the said Act expressly provides that any agreement for payment of rent in excess of the fair rent shall be construed as an agreement for payment of fair rent only. The fair rent is defined under Section 2 (b) to mean the rent fixed under Section 17 of the said Act.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that Sub-section 2 of Section 13 of the said Act provides the payment of the fair rent in terms of a contract and, therefore, deposit of rent at the previous rate is contrary to the said provision. However, a reliance is placed upon a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in case of Punjab National Bank and Others Vs. Gulab Chand Bhora and Another, (2008) 3 CHN 654 in support of the contention that if any increase of the rate of rent is agreed under the agreement, the same is required to be deposited under Section 7 of the said Act.

This Court is not impressed by the aforesaid submission.

Section 13 is prohibitory in nature, as it confers a right on the tenant not to pay any amount in excess of the fair rent. If different Clauses of Sub-section 1 of the said Act is harmoniously construed, it makes abundantly clear that any amount in excess of fair rent should not be paid by the tenant, unless the agreement is in conformity with the provisions of the said Act. The agreement contemplated under the aforesaid Section is distinct and different than the agreement, which was created at the time of inception of the tenancy. Admittedly the determination under Section 7 (2) has already been made and the tenant/opposite party is depositing the rent at the rate determined by the Trial Court.

Therefore, this Court does not find that Section 13 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 can be interpreted and stretched that far as tried to be interpreted by the learned advocate of the petitioner.

So far as the Division Bench judgment cited by the learned advocate of the petitioner is concerned, there was no dispute that the initial rate of rent fixed under an agreement was increased by the parties in terms of the Agreement Clause and was actually paid. In the instant case as well, the tenant at the time of paying the arrears rent deposited the rent prevalent at that point of time in terms of the agreement and the Court have also determined the rate of rent in tune of the stands of the defendant/opposite party.

This Court, therefore, does not find that the order impugned requires any interference.

The revisional application fails.

However, considering the nature of the proceeding, this Court requests the Trial Court to make efforts to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties and preferably within eight months from the date of the communication of this order.

There will be no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied on priority basis.